Mother 3: When is Piracy Justified?

[E-Sabbath]

I feel piracy is perfectly legitimate to transfer something you own from one medium to another.
Eg, some people may feel that ripping music CDs to MP3s is piracy. (The RIAA has argued such.)
That is clearly fair use.

I feel that, if I own a copy of something that I am unable to transfer to another medium, pirating it is perfectly all right. (Eg, so I can play Wrecking Crew for the NES again. I loved that game.)

If the game has been repackaged in the new medium and is not horribly encumbered, I will generally purchase it in preference, however.

(I bought all the Midway Arcade Classics discs because I love about half the games on them.)

[Gozu]

It’s all about increasing happiness in the world. The game is not on sale and verboten to the non-japanese market so Nintendo won’t care as they are not losing sales.

If you pirate the game, will the developpers be happy or unhappy?

Probably happy that more people enjoy their work. They aren’t losing sales.

Will pirates be happy or unhappy?

Happy.

Will anybody else be affected?

No.

Do the math: 0 + happy + happy + 0 = 2happy

Thus, clearly, pirating the game is the ethical and moral thing to do.

[Mijin]

@Tabby_Cat

After all, you’re not using your car in the day - why not let me take it out for a spin and I’ll leave it back where I found it fully topped up with gas?

As usual with analogies to copyright theft, this analogy doesn’t work.

When someone borrows my car, they wear the parts of my car, they risk damaging the car and there’s the potential that I may need to use my car in the day for some unforeseen reason.

[ReuvenB]

It seems like there is general agreement here that in this case, piracy is if not justified, then at least acceptable. Hypothetically, would it change things if Mr. Itoi publicly stated that he was against the translation into English?

[erislover]

The question for me, XWalrus2, is: is there a missed profit opportunity here? And, if so, why was it not taken? His wishes might matter to me but, by and large, my opinions do not influence piracy rates. In the case of duplication and distribution, it would upset me, as a hypothetical manufacturer, if a product that was markedly inferior were being hawked off as my own for deep to complete discounts. As an artist, designer, producer, etc, I have a very real interest in my brand name, so to speak (designer purses, music…)

But, as a manufacturer, I have a certain obligation to my customers. I live at their sufferance, so to speak… but for their money, I would have to find some other means of living. So it is a little bit weird to jump to some moral high ground and demand that I should extract economic benefits out of markets I clearly refuse to service, except insofar as those markets would actually tarnish my reputation.

IOW, to paraphrase from the film Jerry Maguire, show me the damages.

This is not an attempt to promote piracy, justify it, or anything. Piracy is a violation of copyright and there is really no argument to be had there at all. But if anti-piracy folks want to take the argument out of law and onto moral grounds, then they have as much to answer for as the pirates do, IMO.

[smiling_bandit]

Legally, maybe not. But by the same token, companies can hardly claim some moral standing when I “steal” something they refuse to sell me.

[Mangetout]

@Mijin

As usual with analogies to copyright theft, this analogy doesn’t work.

No, as usual (in fact, essential) with analogies in general, it’s an inexact comparison. The point stands, regardless, IMO.

[Mangetout]

@smiling_bandit

Legally, maybe not. But by the same token, companies can hardly claim some moral standing when I “steal” something they refuse to sell me.

Why not? Are they under any obligation (moral or otherwise) to allow you to be supplied with something you merely want? If it was an iron lung or kidney machine, I could see the merit in an argument that it’s morally OK to take when they won’t sell, but it’s a video game - I don’t think the need is important enough to override anything.

[Revtim]

@smiling_bandit

Legally, maybe not. But by the same token, companies can hardly claim some moral standing when I “steal” something they refuse to sell me.

Sure they can, they own it. Morally, they have the right to do or not do whatever they want with it. If they wish to lock it in a safe, or even destroy every copy of it, that’s their moral right.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Mijin

As usual with analogies to copyright theft, this analogy doesn’t work.

When someone borrows my car, they wear the parts of my car, they risk damaging the car and there’s the potential that I may need to use my car in the day for some unforeseen reason.

let’s make it a better analogy then. Instead of driving it away, I simply sit in it. No gas used, negligible wear and tear.

What I’m trying to get at is the nebulous concept of ownership, and why loss of control is relevant, even if there is no profit motive, or potential for profit motive.

[Discordia]

@Mangetout

Why not? Are they under any obligation (moral or otherwise) to allow you to be supplied with something you merely want?

That’s the point of intellectual property laws, so yes.

If it was an iron lung or kidney machine, I could see the merit in an argument that it’s morally OK to take when they won’t sell, but it’s a video game - I don’t think the need is important enough to override anything.

It’s not possible to “take” intellectual property.

Equating physical property with intellectual property leads to such silly arguments. If you think they’re morally equivalent fine, but they’re not the same thing.

[Mangetout]

@Discordia

That’s the point of intellectual property laws, so yes.

I’m not sure I agree that is the point of intellectual property laws. Do they not exist to enable creators to control the use and distribution of their creations?

It’s not possible to “take” intellectual property.

You’ll note that I was responding to a post that said: “companies can hardly claim some moral standing when I “steal” something they refuse to sell me.”

Equating physical property with intellectual property leads to such silly arguments. If you think they’re morally equivalent fine, but they’re not the same thing.

I’m not trying to equate them. I’m responding to the part about moral compulsion.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Discordia

That’s the point of intellectual property laws, so yes.

Mwa? I fail to see the part in Copyright law which mandates that you be allowed to copy anything you want. Schools have a special exception known as a statutory licence, which allows them to copy portions of works if they pay the rights owners equitable remuneration.

It’s not possible to “take” intellectual property.

What do you mean by take? If I own the copyright, I am allowed to prevent anyone else from making copies of it. If any one makes copies of it, my right has been infringed. The fact that I still have my original copy is irrelevant.

Copyright infringement is not theft. But that doesn’t mean it’s amoral either. I’m sure you can see a situation where my copyright is completely devalued because the public can obtain identical copies elsewhere.

Equating physical property with intellectual property leads to such silly arguments. If you think they’re morally equivalent fine, but they’re not the same thing.

If you would care to explain why the argument is silly…?
I think it’s interesting to go back to the concept of ownership. Most people don’t think about that any more, but why do we own things? Before there was law, there was no concept of ownership - you “owned” the things you could prevent other people from taking.

We moved on, thankfully.

Now, if you take my pencil without my permission, I can get the cops to arrest you (hyperbole). If I simply lend it to you, so that it’s out of my possession, I can still call the cops on you if you refuse to give it back at the end of the day. Even if I’m a noodle armed pencil pusher and you’re the beefiest beefcake in town.

But that begs the question - why do I own the pencil?

It’s an interesting question. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll take it that noone has any objection that I own the pencil because I exchanged my labour for it, and that every man has the right to own the fruits of his labour.

What about copyright then? What is the labour of an author? Is the fruit of an author the one copy which he wrote by hand? Certainly, if I gave you an equivalent weight of paper and ink, it wouldn’t be worth as much as a Terry Pratchett Novel (clean paper, however, would be worth much more than a Dan Brown Novel). There is an intangible “extra” which represents the work of an author. We can call it, for the purposes of discussion, the “work”.

So, we establish that the author does work, and that the work is valuable, and that man is entitled to the fruits of their labour. How then do we protect the work?

Enter copyright. It’s a very recent invention by the standards of property law, but going back to natural law principles, you can understand why, once the printing press had been invented and the manual labour of reproducing books wasn’t as big a factor, copyright was invented.

It has nothing to do with depriving the original owner of the work. It is about ownership of the “work”, about control of the “work”. It is about giving the author his due.
I know it’s popular to rail against the powers that be, and the big corporations which have too much, and which protect what they have to the utmost extent and with great vigor, but when it comes down to it, the basic reason why copyright exists is very natural, and especially so when today, an ever larger proportion of “work” is intangible, but yet can be commoditised and re-sold, rather than being a service.

[Discordia]

@Mangetout

I’m not sure I agree that is the point of intellectual property laws. Do they not exist to enable creators to control the use and distribution of their creations?

As mentioned, they exist to promote the arts and sciences. Allowing creators to control the use & distribution is simply a method of doing that. One that isn’t terribly effective anymore, but I digress.

In cases where the law is not serving that goal, and the example in the OP seems to obviously be one, that law is no longer useful. Or moral, but I don’t personally think that thinking about copyright in terms of morality is useful.

[Discordia]

@Tabby_Cat

Mwa? I fail to see the part in Copyright law which mandates that you be allowed to copy anything you want. Schools have a special exception known as a statutory licence, which allows them to copy portions of works if they pay the rights owners equitable remuneration.

Oh, I wasn’t claiming it was legal, it quite obviously isn’t. I was referring to the (moral or otherwise) bit of Mangetout’s post.

Copyright infringement is not theft. But that doesn’t mean it’s amoral either. I’m sure you can see a situation where my copyright is completely devalued because the public can obtain identical copies elsewhere.

I never claimed that it was moral in all cases. I only consider it moral when it does not harm the cause of advancing the arts and sciences. In any case where the IP holder refuses to licence the IP, I see no moral/useful reason to obey the law anymore (obviously excluding all those pesky things like fines and jail…).

I think it’s interesting to go back to the concept of ownership. Most people don’t think about that any more, but why do we own things? Before there was law, there was no concept of ownership - you “owned” the things you could prevent other people from taking.

We moved on, thankfully.

Now, if you take my pencil without my permission, I can get the cops to arrest you (hyperbole). If I simply lend it to you, so that it’s out of my possession, I can still call the cops on you if you refuse to give it back at the end of the day. Even if I’m a noodle armed pencil pusher and you’re the beefiest beefcake in town.

But that begs the question - why do I own the pencil?

It’s an interesting question. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll take it that noone has any objection that I own the pencil because I exchanged my labour for it, and that every man has the right to own the fruits of his labour.

I don’t find talk of natural rights very useful, it’s all terribly subjective. Property rights exist because almost everyone wants to keep the stuff they make/earn, so we agree to make it official. A good reason to keep them beyond “we want to”, is that they make society richer/less violent etc, benefiting almost everyone.

What about copyright then? What is the labour of an author? Is the fruit of an author the one copy which he wrote by hand? Certainly, if I gave you an equivalent weight of paper and ink, it wouldn’t be worth as much as a Terry Pratchett Novel (clean paper, however, would be worth much more than a Dan Brown Novel). There is an intangible “extra” which represents the work of an author. We can call it, for the purposes of discussion, the “work”.

So, we establish that the author does work, and that the work is valuable, and that man is entitled to the fruits of their labour. How then do we protect the work?

Enter copyright. It’s a very recent invention by the standards of property law, but going back to natural law principles, you can understand why, once the printing press had been invented and the manual labour of reproducing books wasn’t as big a factor, copyright was invented.

It has nothing to do with depriving the original owner of the work. It is about ownership of the “work”, about control of the “work”. It is about giving the author his due.

Assuming you’re in the US, it’s about “promoting the useful arts and sciences”, not giving the author his due. In France IIRC it’s about giving the author his due, and I imagine it varies from place to place.

I know it’s popular to rail against the powers that be, and the big corporations which have too much, and which protect what they have to the utmost extent and with great vigor, but when it comes down to it, the basic reason why copyright exists is very natural, and especially so when today, an ever larger proportion of “work” is intangible, but yet can be commoditised and re-sold, rather than being a service.

It exists because it makes society richer than it would be without it. It promotes the arts and sciences, on the whole. In some cases though, like the OPs case, it is useless or even actively harmful.

The reason it exists is not natural, as evidence is the fact that it simply didn’t exist for so long. It was made to make discoveries of information, whether that be an engrossing book or fission power, valuable. Sometimes it fails, as any blunt instrument will. Sadly it won’t get the reform it desperately needs until people stop insisting they have a natural right to prevent anyone from having access to information that they discovered first.

[sleestak]

@smiling_bandit

Legally, maybe not. But by the same token, companies can hardly claim some moral standing when I “steal” something they refuse to sell me.

Why? What if the author who created the work has a reason the book/game/whatever is no longer for sale? As a concrete example, Stephen King pulled a book from sale after a school shooting because the shooter had a copy of the book in question. Linky. What if the creator of the work decides not to sell it in a certain country for personal or political reasons?

Why do you think anyone should have more control over a work than the person/company who created that work?

Slee

[Discordia]

@sleestak

Why? What if the author who created the work has a reason the book/game/whatever is no longer for sale? As a concrete example, Stephen King pulled a book from sale after a school shooting because the shooter had a copy of the book in question. Linky. What if the creator of the work decides not to sell it in a certain country for personal or political reasons?

Why do you think anyone should have more control over a work than the person/company who created that work?

Slee

They’re given that control, by society. It can be taken away, and should be, when they no longer intend to advance the arts or sciences*. There’s no other reason for them to have so much control.

*so sick of that phrase, can’t think of a better one though.

[Tabby_Cat]

@Discordia

I don’t find talk of natural rights very useful, it’s all terribly subjective. Property rights exist because almost everyone wants to keep the stuff they make/earn, so we agree to make it official. A good reason to keep them beyond “we want to”, is that they make society richer/less violent etc, benefiting almost everyone.

And authors, on the other hand…?

It exists because it makes society richer than it would be without it. It promotes the arts and sciences, on the whole. In some cases though, like the OPs case, it is useless or even actively harmful.

I’m sure you’ll agree it is the case that some people own far more than they need. And I’m also sure you’ll agree that it is the case that some people need more than they own. Would you say that it is moral to take from those that own more than they need to give to those who need more than they own, so that we can make society richer/less violent/benefit the greatest number?

People keep control over property. If I have a car that I bought and left in the garage until it rotted, it’s still mine and no one has the right to take it away from me to put to good use. If I buy food and throw it away, it’s still mine and no one has the right to take it away from me to feed hungry children.

You see such examples of waste all the time. And yet nobody is suggesting the “keep cars out of garages and in good use” Act or the"Feed hungry children from bakery leftovers" Act. And that is because property is not owned because it somehow represents the greatest benefit to society.

Or at least, in our current ownership model of society. In some countries, everything is owned by the state. The state allocates the use of property, in theory, to maximise the benefit to society. I pass no judgement on the merits or workability of that model.

The reason it exists is not natural, as evidence is the fact that it simply didn’t exist for so long. It was made to make discoveries of information, whether that be an engrossing book or fission power, valuable. Sometimes it fails, as any blunt instrument will. Sadly it won’t get the reform it desperately needs until people stop insisting they have a natural right to prevent anyone from having access to information that they discovered first.

When I refer to “natural”, I am refering to the laws of nature, as described by Locke. i.e. the right of man to own the fruits of his labour. An overview can be found here.

Discoveries are not patentable or copyrightable. Let’s get that clear.

What is copyrightable is an original work. What is patentable is an invention which is industrially applicable, sufficiently described in the patent application and which is non-obvious when considered in the context of the state of the art.

You say that copyright is not “natural”. I might quibble with that, but let’s run with it.

How about Land rights? Are those natural? Why should blackacre be more mine than yours? Let’s take another recent invention - privacy rights. Why shouldn’t anybody be allowed to take your picture and put it on a billboard? Is that “natural”?

[erislover]

@Tabby_Cat

What about copyright then? What is the labour of an author? Is the fruit of an author the one copy which he wrote by hand? Certainly, if I gave you an equivalent weight of paper and ink, it wouldn’t be worth as much as a Terry Pratchett Novel (clean paper, however, would be worth much more than a Dan Brown Novel). There is an intangible “extra” which represents the work of an author. We can call it, for the purposes of discussion, the “work”.

So, we establish that the author does work, and that the work is valuable, and that man is entitled to the fruits of their labour.

What fruits? That’s my question. What fruits, exactly? We’re talking about distribution channels that the businesses themselves have avoided. Will the author sleep less soundly at night because someone copied an electronic version of his book? What dollar amount would put him at ease? Well, apparently, until quite recently, zero, or some fraction so small that no one felt it was worth it.

It has nothing to do with depriving the original owner of the work. It is about ownership of the “work”, about control of the “work”. It is about giving the author his due.

And what is a person who sees no value in a certain distribution channel “due”? The cost of reproduction? But that’s zero. A portion of the sales? But 100% of zero is still zero. Let’s suppose, just suppose, pirates are all very sorry and wish to pay back the author by contributing the money they collected by putting a PDF on a P2P network. Just how much is that, exactly, that the author is due?

I play go, and in the go community there was a bit of a stir when Kiseido publishing took to reproducing some OOP books in electronic form. A great deal of people were upset. Upset! Can you believe it? Upset because there would be piracy, and it would kill the whole thing. But they should have known: there was already piracy. Now, at least, Kiseido could make some money from OOP books at a deeply discounted electronic price. (Quite reasonable, IMO.) Well, Kiseido Digital has grown, rather than dried up as a failed experiment at new markets. Surprising?

I know it’s popular to rail against the powers that be, and the big corporations which have too much, and which protect what they have to the utmost extent and with great vigor, but when it comes down to it, the basic reason why copyright exists is very natural, and especially so when today, an ever larger proportion of “work” is intangible, but yet can be commoditised and re-sold, rather than being a service.

Whether a law is “natural” is not a standard I am familiar with. All I can say is: the market is there for the taking. If you’re not in it, measures of what one is “losing” are questionable.

[E-Sabbath]

I don’t see why thinking of copyright in terms of morality isn’t useful. If you own a copy of something, it is yours to appreciate. Or modify, as you see fit, for personal use.
If there are barriers to appreciation of the thing, you have every moral right to shatter them, for the copy you own is yours. You can even duplicate it as many times as you feel like, if it so inspires you.

Now, if you wish to give these duplications to others, then the interest of the original author is paramount. But so long as you own the item, and it is within your private sphere, whatever you do is moral and ethical. (Assuming it is not a living being, of course. Or some kind of strange feeling computer program, whatever.)

Pirating is, generally wrong. Sometimes justified, in the rare case in which you are essentially asking someone to help you modify something you own into another state. I don’t think anyone would see a problem with you asking someone to convert your Ford into an electric car, and I don’t see a problem with you getting a rom of a program you already own.

But generally, taking something without appropriate compensation… or a chain of appropriate compensation, where something was bought, then sold, then sold, then sold, and so on, is pretty much a violation of morality.
Doesn’t mean I havn’t done it. But I admit it was wrong.